Drawing on the work of Partners for Democratic Change in the emerging
democracies of Eastern and Central Europe, Shonholtz explores the "intersection
between the historical and cultural suppression of conflict and the democratic
need for the expression and resolution of conflict."(p. 360)

Attitudes toward conflict and conflict resolution re shaped by ones' cultural
background. "In the West, conflict is inextricably linked to positive images of
freedom, and it is perceived as a constructive engine for social change that
warrants constitutional and institutional protection."(p. 360) Conflict is
constitutionally protected in the form of individual rights against the
state.

In contrast to the Western acceptance of conflict, Communist nations saw all
conflict as rooted in the class struggle. This view leaves no room for the idea
of conflict between people who are on the same side. If there was a conflict,
then the side challenging the State must be an enemy of the State. "With dissent
a criminal activity, there was no need to develop negotiation, mediation, or
conflict management systems that could address opposing political perspectives
peacefully."(p. 361) Minority ethnic groups whose ideas differed from the
Communist State were thus seen as opponents or enemies of the state. Conflicts
were seen in "win or lose" terms.

After the fall of Communist governments the new democratic governments
explicitly embraced diversity and conflict. But those new states still lack the
institutions, procedures and cultural attitudes needed to deal productively with
conflict.

Partners for Democratic Change seeks to create conflict mediating structures
in civil society--what Shonholtz calls "a physical place and visible process"(p.
3620) Local conciliation commissions are one such conflict mediation structure.
The Partner's program in Bulgaria began with an educational push to show local
government and ethnic leaders that conflict can be constructive and can promote
democratic goals. Partners teaches that "In a democratic civil society, minority
conflict becomes an indispensable vehicle for the clarification and adaptation
of new social rules and the rationale for developing a physical venue for the
interaction of those rules in society."(p. 363) Minority conflict is
particularly helpful in generating new rules and venues for addressing
conflicts.

Conflict also serves to strengthen democracy. Dealing peacefully with
conflict involves changing the very conditions that created the conflict.
Dealing with conflicts makes the society more flexible and adaptable.
Suppressing or repressing conflicts makes society more rigid, and so more likely
to fail catastrophically when conditions change.

Partner's local conciliation commissions also create a much-needed forum for
conflicting parties to explore their differences, their options, and the various
consequences of their conflict or its solutions. Shonholtz notes that "the
psychological framework of enemies and winners that prevailed in the old regimes
is dysfunctional in the context of a commission that focuses dialog on needs,
interests, and the exploration and analysis of options."(p. 364) These
commissions also create an opportunity for opponents to test each other's power.

Shonholtz describes the creation of a local conciliation commission in
Plovdiv, Bulgaria. In 1992 a police shooting of a gypsy man sparked ethnic
unrest in the city. The city had no neutral forum for discussion of such
incidents. Working together, Shonholtz and a Bulgarian conflict resolution
center created a forum where the different groups involved could discuss the
incident. "The absence of an existing community capacity to meet and address
ethnic tensions and the need for such a capacity became important themes of the
center's organizing work in Plovdiv."(p. 365)

Those first meetings in response to the shooting incident ultimately produced
an agreement to create a local ethnic conciliation commission. This also marked
the very first agreement to be reached between the parties. The commission was
composed of Turkish, Bulgarian and Gypsy members. Member training included
role-play over a fictional case of ethnic crisis. The role playing exercise
served to move participants away from "enemy" thinking, and toward more open
discussion of their problems, exploration of their options and assessment of
their relative power. This training exercise has led Shonholtz to conclude that,
"given the number of parties involved and the likely breadth of social issues
presented, [training] needed to include the features of facilitated dialogue,
negotiation, and cooperative planning and problem solving."(p. 367)